Drusus Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 The bug is simple. A vehicle behind the wreck of another vehicle is very much invulnerable. I was able to use this in Allah's fist, so that at least 2 M1A1 used all their ammo (or at least stopped shooting) against one T62. Just drive one of the T62 so that the side of the tank is facing the enemy. Wait for it to be killed. Drive another tank so that the wreck is just in front of it. Wait for the enemy to use all its ammo hitting the wreck. Works also against those evil RPGs. I have seen this actually quite often. It is commonly triggered when there is a lot of vehicles in a small area. And yes, I am sure this is not as it should be. If the tank behind the wreck is able to fire, then surely there must be a way for the target to fire back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yapma Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I agree. After installing the patch and playing a couple of scenarios, this seemed to be the most obvious flaw in the gameplay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I don't dare comment with any intelligence on your specific scenario, but in tank v tank battles, you can always find situations where a tank can fire on another tanks that can't fire back. I would think that could be a real problem hiding behind a wreck and part of the tank sticking out. just two cents. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Originally posted by thewood: I don't dare comment with any intelligence on your specific scenario, but in tank v tank battles, you can always find situations where a tank can fire on another tanks that can't fire back. I would think that could be a real problem hiding behind a wreck and part of the tank sticking out. just two cents. ...this was a known bug sometime ago, but it should not show up in V1.04 I thought it was fixed [ October 03, 2007, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 I was actually commenting on how it can happen in real life also. Unless BFS is fixing or sumfink real-life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thelmia Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Yeah, using a wreck for cover works great. I do this all the time. I think it's because the targeting AI ignores the existance of the wreck and tries to shoot through it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 That was actuall a complaint from 1.01 also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 The same problem in the screenshot below, only with infantry benefitting from the cover of the wreck: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
average Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Rollstoy, dude,the M2A3 is actually in the way. Move the BMP 2 forwrd or change the area fire command to the right of the command squad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Originally posted by average: Rollstoy, dude, the M2A3 is actually in the way.This is a great executive summary of the problem discussed in this thread! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Are you sure that this is a bug? Something like this happened to me yesterday. I was playing a QB and drove three T-somethings to the crest of a hill. I did a horrible job of positioning and as a result they all bunched up and two got blown up by ATGMs in short order. The third was right behind the other two and it got taken out after about 10-15 secs by another ATGM. It really was tightly behind the other two but it didn't survive very long. Then, in another QB, I moved a T-72 into a perfect hull-down position and watched the crestline in front of me get hammered by ATGMs. That was spectacular to watch and my T-72 sat there patiently taking out the Bradleys and it didn't take a hit. In the first case, the tank was directly behind a crestline and two destroyed tanks but got killed quite quickly. In the second, I was just very lucky with the positioning. I would expect this would be the way it would work in real life too. Position your tank behind two dead buddies and you've got a much better chance of surviving. However, you do have two dead buddies... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 My experience on this matter (note: back to 1.01 version): http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=000216 Final word by BFC about this matter seems to be here: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=000142#000000 [ October 04, 2007, 01:14 AM: Message edited by: Kieme(ITA) ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stirling Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Some of you seem to be missing the point. The point is that the AI is wasting all its ammo firing at targets it shouldn't even be able to see (if a particular wreck is blocking fire completely). This is obviously unintended behavior (bug). Whether it's fixable or not, I couldn't say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Has BFC said anything about this yet? I too don't think the current behaviour is ideal. My own "Kurds Attack!" scenario even makes a gamey use of this by providing the Blue player with a conveniently placed "friendly" wreck for cover. The wreck looks like a knocked out enemy vehicle in the game but if you look in the editor it is actually on Blue side's unit purchase list (set to "Destroyed"). This is the only way to get it to act as cover for Blue side. There is also a reverse problem. If you put your men behind an enemy wreck it looks like they are in cover. However, enemy fire goes right through the wreck and hits your men. Conversely, fire from your own men hits the wreck and bounces straight back at them. Proposed solution: Once a vehicle becomes a wreck, it is treated as neutral rather than part of one team or another, in the sense that it provides cover to both sides. However, it is more likely to block LOF to units further away than those closer to it. This would enable units to shelter behind a tank wreck and still be able to fire over it (maybe with 10 or 20 percent chance of no LOF per "shot"). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: Has BFC said anything about this yet? I too don't think the current behaviour is ideal. My own "Kurds Attack!" scenario even makes a gamey use of this by providing the Blue player with a conveniently placed "friendly" wreck for cover. The wreck looks like a knocked out enemy vehicle in the game but if you look in the editor it is actually on Blue side's unit purchase list (set to "Destroyed"). This is the only way to get it to act as cover for Blue side. There is also a reverse problem. If you put your men behind an enemy wreck it looks like they are in cover. However, enemy fire goes right through the wreck and hits your men. Conversely, fire from your own men hits the wreck and bounces straight back at them. Proposed solution: Once a vehicle becomes a wreck, it is treated as neutral rather than part of one team or another, in the sense that it provides cover to both sides. However, it is more likely to block LOF to units further away than those closer to it. This would enable units to shelter behind a tank wreck and still be able to fire over it (maybe with 10 or 20 percent chance of no LOF per "shot"). Please, do take a look at the 2nd link I posted on my reply in this thread.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Kieme(ITA), That thread is 7 pages long and starts in 2005! I have looked through it for about 15 minutes and am still none the wiser. Sorry! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted October 6, 2007 Share Posted October 6, 2007 Just look for posts made by battlefront.com and you'll have some official statements. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.